To learn more about the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, I would suggest checking out these links below.NY Times: Secrets of History
National Security Archive: The Secret CIA history of the Iran Coup
For a posting comment, I would like you to answer any or all of these questions:
-Do you feel like you understand why Iran has acted the way it has in the last 30 years, specifically in relations to the U.S., by watching the video today?
-Do you think the U.S. was justified in taking Mossadegh out?
-Do you think Iranians share the blame for what happened to Mossadegh?
-Do you think the CIA should repeat what it did to Mossadegh to other countries, even Iran today?
Remember, the deadline for the first post is coming up.
-Amir
29 comments:
US involvement in the coup explains a lot in terms of the Iranian hostilities that exist to the day. The coup seems to have backfired on the US, because although there was no communist takeover as worried, it eventually led to a revolution in Iran by a very anti-US regime. Although there is a general consensus about respecting the territorial sovereignty and political integrity of countries, I don't think such arguments are always applicable. Only reason I believe the US involvement in the coup in Iran was unjustified was because its decisions weren't based on any plausible evidence but mere suspicions and assumptions (as made evident in the Kermit Roosevelt readings; he fails to provide any evidence for his claims) Because we live in a highly interconnected world where one's domestic policies affect other countries as well, I don't think the idea of foreign intervention by those with national interests at stake is incorrect to act. Over the course of history, foreign intervention has not been limited to the US. I feel that it is not an issue of ethics but more of a question of a country's abilities. If I am not mistaken, many of the major powers in international politics have intervened in others' affairs out of their interests. Iran cannot claim to be completely innocent of such acts given its support for groups like Hezbollah and others in the region.
I did gain a great deal of understanding from watching the video and reading the articles from the NY Times. The US government seems so blatantly hypocritical when they full heartedly support the notion that Iran is a threat to US security and is ruled by such a backwards, fundamentalist regime while they are behind this propaganda fueled coup that was for the purposes of securing a puppet government in Iran that wouldn’t intervene on US or British oil initiatives. It feels extremely arrogant that the western powers of the world feel as though it is their right and almost duty to ensure their lasting dominance in the world. While I do understand the anger and resentment felt towards the United States by Iranians, it is still difficult for me to have any kind of support for such a fundamentalist religious regime that is so intertwined with social and political policies. Perhaps because it is such a departure from my own beliefs, and I do not really understand or support any religion as a fundamental aspect to society other than it being a personal and private affair, but I would be interested to know how anti-American sentiments and the Shah’s brutal reign culminated together to create support for what seems from an outsider’s perspective to be a very dominating and restrictive religious regime. I know my lack of understanding is probably slightly pathetic, but it’s difficult for me to really grasp why such a religious fundamentalist regime was supported, which doesn’t seem to allow for many basic social freedoms and equalities, rather than another form such as the one Mossadegh started which focused more on nationalism.
If looking at the situation from a strictly economic and strategic point of view, then maybe, but then again, I don’t really buy into the whole threat of the Cold War and the need to build up such massive weapons capabilities and coerce so many countries into supporting the American cause. I realize I wasn’t alive during this time, but the justifications and the fear created seem a little overly extensive. The US and British oil interests were threatened by Mossadegh’s plan to nationalize, which is a serious issue no one can deny since the US is the biggest consumer in the world, however in my idealistic mind, there could have been other ways of cooperating with Iran in order to still trade and buy their oil without planning a covert operation to overthrow their Prime Minister. The western powers have had their time to industrialize and build up a global economic structure and it is sad to see their response when other countries try to do the same.
No, I think propaganda is a powerful tool. The US and Britain were shoveling money into the country in order to turn the people against Mossadegh and create sentiments of anger towards him and unrest within the country. I think the same kind of tactics are used within America all the time to make us feel a certain way or fear a certain thing, Iran maybe?
I found the historical info of Iran in the 1950s very informative. I don’t think the U.S. should have planned the coup to remove Mossadeq. By this action, the U.S. seems to be self-centered in the sense that it is not looking at the benefits that Iran will get with the presence of Mossadeq who was known as an “ardent nationalist,” but rather wishes to have the Shah in power (with whom the U.S. got along). And, as it is well-known, U.S. was primarily interested in Iran’s oil industry. I don’t this U.S. was justified in the action it undertook.
I feel that the U.S. involvement in Iran’s governmental affairs in the past affects Iran’s perception of the U.S. to this day.
I feel that U.S. was wrong for their involvement in Iran’s political and industrial affairs. Throughout history, we see that the U.S. seems to take lead in mingling in the affairs of other countries, and this often leads to bad relations. Similarly, the U.S. planned the coup d’état against Mosaddeq. The U.S. saw Mosaddeq as a harmful mainly because Mosaddeq was known to oppose foreign intervention in Iran. All the political issues the U.S. has with Iran are mainly due to the outcome of the past events. I see no reflection of American ideologies in the U.S. support of the overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq.
Mohammed Pahlavi is an interesting figure in Iran’s history. He extended suffrage to women. A major criticism is just that he wasn’t connected to people of his nation and should not have been the ruler, as he wasn’t strong enough. The Hostage crisis and the issues of today would never have happened if Iran had an able person to rule the nation and if the U.S. not interfered.
According to what was detailed in the documentary, I do not support the position in the takeover of Mossadegh. I do not believe that any two people should have as much power as the two brothers were granted. But, perhaps it would not have happened if, at the time, Iran stood united in their commitment to their country and government. It would not have been as easy to infiltrate. I do have an issue with the takeover of the Embassy. The people that were accused of being spies were clerical workers not the actual individuals doing the so called "spying." Any Embassy from any country is positioned to constantly monitor the climate of the country they are in. Perhaps, there were individuals actually monitoring Russia. I am curious about the implications of a fundamentalist religious mindset running a country socially and politically.
I definitely understand why Iran has hostilities towards the United States. Operation Ajax was so unfair, especially since Mossadegh was a democratically elected Prime Minister. Its also important to remember that the MI6 had a lot to do with this operation. Its ridiculous to claim that Cold War politics came into play because Mossadegh had no communist affiliations, the reality was that the western ambitions of Iranian oil was what initiated the coup. Interestingly enough, a year later the CIA enacts its second overthrow of a foreign government with "Operation Success"in Guatemala in which the democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz is overthrown. The Dulles brothers where behind the covert operation just like they were in Operation Ajax. It is no surprise that countries like Iran that have undergone US occupations are resentful, its COMPLETELY justified!
In response to the question posed if Iranians share the blame to what happened to Mossadegh? I would say no because it seems the CIA exaceberated or incited poiltical differences to the point of social unrest.
The video mentioned that the Shah had reservations about removing Mossadegh and was concerned of facing a backlash. From disinformation/propaganda campaigns to polarizing the conflict between siding with the Shah or "godless" communist the CIA is clearly more responsible for what went on in Iran
Unfortunately I feel that Iran’s 30 year revolution is just another outcome of the overplayed scenario of superpower countries trying to exert their control over “undeveloped” countries for personal advantage. US and Britain said the coup was justified for Iran’s protection against the Communist party and for their political and economical development. But the fact of the matter is, and Eisenhower’s administration admitted to it, was that the actions done by the US and UK were for “strategic reasons.” Both needed Iran’s resources and both wanted the Iran's alliance against the Soviet Union. In other words the coup was formed because it added to the security of both countries. Not that I’m bashing on just the US and UK. I’m pretty sure that any country’s actions toward international foreign policy have underlying “strategic reasons.”
So yes I do understand Iran’s actions for the past 30 years, and no I don’t think the US was justified for taking Mossadeq out. The US took out one of the few whose actions seem to be for the benefit and self-sustainability of Iran. Instead of trying to progress Iran’s government for the people, they forced to power a Shah, who seemed to lack the leadership attributes in the first place, that would be another instrument for the advancement of the US. Why wouldn’t Iranians have a revolution after years governmental neglect and international abuse?
It is hard to judge whether what the US did to PM Mossadegh was justified or not because you can't really give an opinion on this without making a judgment in your own mind concerning whether it is right or wrong. Do I feel what happened was wrong? Unquestionably; as much as I would like to avoid counterfactuals, it is hard to imagine Iran not being a better place today if the coup did not happen. But regarding whether or not the US was justified in its actions you have to understand the priorities and limitations of US foreign policy to understand that the US made a logical decision that was in their strategic interest.
We must understand US foreign policy as the result of strategic interest; in the Middle East the interests were oil, Israel, and containing the Soviet Union. Mossadegh was not a threat to Israel, but he provided no assurances to the US on other matters. He had already nationalized Iranian oil and had the power to possibly create an embargo; this would terribly disrupt a burgeoning US economy. He was not a communist, and US intelligence and administrations knew this. But he was in a position to turn to the Soviet Union and ask for their help if he felt under fire from the US or Britain (much like Nasser).
The sad fact is that Mossadegh was a liability for the US, a risk the US was just not willing to take.
After watching the video I started to understand my parents and their feelings toward the united states government. It makes sense that they feel anger because it seems like every time Iran tried to better itself and become more independent outside forces would come in and destroy what they were doing. I think Iran has every right to feel anger and hatred towards the us government because the US removed one of their great leaders who was trying to make the country better for its people.
I kind of agree with the above posts... I feel that the U.S. was justified in removing Mossadegh, but did it in the wrong way. In the context of the Cold War, I understand why removing Mossadegh would have been of great strategic importance to the US. I mean, the USSR could have just as easily taken over (by force or by secret coup) the Iranian oil reserves, which would have been a big boost to their warfare capacity.
I think with this in mind, Americans became fearful and acted too hastily, orchestrating a secret coup that was, quite frankly, very insulting for the Iranians. The US should have tried to overthrow Mossadegh without sneaking behind the backs of the Iranians! I don't know how the US could have done it, though... something to think about, I guess.
The participation of the United States in the 1953 coup d'etat is understandable but not justifiable. For one, Mossadegh was democratically elected- isn't the US all about spreading democracy? On the other hand, the US post WWII was entering into another war- the Cold War. Anyone who went against US interest was suspect. I don't know if Iran would have helped the Soviets or if Iran would fall under communists influences but, I understand the United States fears that it might- more of an excuse than a justification. Now, knowing the results of the coup and the animosity Iran has felt/ still feels towards the United States I can safely say that the ends do not justify the means. The US has created and perpetuated poor relations with Iran. I can't say with certainty who threw the first stone but it would appear that the coup d'etat of Mossadegh is tantamount to a boulder!
I don't think that questions of "right," "wrong" and "justified" or "unjustified" bear to any relevant point on which all the parties could or should agree as a starting point for analysis. The only possible such starting point is law, in this case, international law. Following that line of thought:
The US had no basis whatsoever in international law for its intervention in Iran in 1953. The only parties for whom the intervention could be "justified" are parties that would receive arbitrary benefits from the intervention.
I don't think it's ever possible for a people to be responsible for actions taken by individuals/nations other than themselves. I think the desire to blame Iranian society, even partially, for being too permeable and subject to outside influence is a tired case of blaming-the-victims, especially when that blame is being handed out, as it is in this thread, by a member of the society that perpetrated the intervention.
I think that it's only in a context of empire that we could even consider the propriety of an organization like the CIA carrying out ongoing interventions that violate the sovereignty of other nations. In that vein, the 1953 coup in Iran and all the covert (and not so covert) actions that have followed it in support of economic imperialism demonstrate the utter duplicity of the American establishment's commitment to democratic practice, international law, or any other formal mechanism for accountability. The fact that such interventions continue to take place demonstrates the impotence of international law.
I think it's ridiculous to argue whether or not what the U.S. did to Mosssadegh was right or wrong. It was clearly wrong. The question presents itself whether the positives from this wrong outweigh the wrong itself. I do not think this is the case either, but that's not my main argument.
I think that the U.S. was really in the dark about what the potential for the USSR taking over Iran was. Even by the end of the Shah's reign, the CIA really had no clue what was going on. Months, even weeks before the Shah was overthrown, the CIA thought that the situation was relatively stable and that the Shah would be able to retain power. Jimmy Carter, less than a year before the Shah's ouster, toasted the Shah for his efforts in bringing human rights to Iran. Clearly there was a failure in information.
This brings into question whether the U.S. should be making such significant decisions in uni or bi-lateral means when their level of understanding repeatedly proves to be lacking. Let's throw out the threshold of right and wrong; previous posts have shown that this is subjective and nonsense.
The only reason the coup is looked at so closely today in US foreign intervention politics is because Iran is now a threat. All those countries in Latin America that had similar types of intervention, no one points to these cases. When they become a threat, we will.
Ramble on...
The United States should not repeat its actions in Iran a second time or, for that matter, anywhere else. America's global dominance in the 20th Century--what Time Magazine's Henry Luce called "the American Century"-- informed a national feeling of invulnerability and entitlement. I believe it is this sentiment that justified for the US government, at least in part, its intervention in Iran. The CIA felt that their position as a global superpower enabled them to determine what was good or bad and right or wrong for the rest of the world. Not only is this presumptuous, it is dangerous insomuch that it fosters negative American sentiments in those places that do not agree with the US government’s actions.
This is especially true as we enter into the 21st century. America’s global dominance is no longer a certitude. As countries like China and India emerge as competitive economic powers, the United States needs to take particular care in its diplomatic relations with foreign governments. What occurred on September 11, 2001 should serve as a warning to the United States government of the dangers of continued interference in world affairs.
It's pretty hard to call the United States deposing a democratically elected leader "justifiable." There are plenty of words that, though unsavory, that sound more appropriate. Still, it should be said that these things happen. The CIA's interference in Iran was, on a more abstract level, just a powerful country exerting influence and manipulating a weaker state in order to protect its interests. While this might be one of the first real cases of Americans doing this, and even that is unclear, it is practically a cliche given human history. I wouldn't call this pattern right or fair, and maybe I'm a cynic, but events such as this seem almost inevitable. Should the CIA repeat such an action today? Of course not. Can the CIA repeat such an action today? I don't think so. It's been noted that Iranians are among the most internet savvy populations in the world. Also, they're very young. The tactics of misinformation and polarization the CIA employed in the 1950's would probably fail in such an environment where news travels fast, political commentary is everywhere, and the state can hardly control either.
I don't think what the US did to Mossadegh should be justified. In fact, I think it should be seen as a bad example of a country interfering with another country. The reason for that is because the purpose of the interference was not for the better cause for the Iranian people, but for the interest of the US and British government. And it wasn't as if Mossadegh was trying to attack the US or Britain or any other country. I can't find any good reason to justify the act of the US taking Mossadegh out. Even if you could find an improvement in Iran's society or economy in some terms between before and after the coup, I think that still wouldn't be a reason of justification of the interference. A country has no right to remove another country's democraticly elected prime minister just for their own cause.
I think that the US has a tendency of interfering with other countries, and I think the US should be really careful and thoughtful about what they are doing to the other country when interfering, much more than when they are dealing with their own country.
I don't see how the U.S. could have been justified in taking Mossdegh out. Considering the weight we put on democracy in this country, I don't know how anyone could justify us taking out a man who was elected by the people, especially considering we were doing so to keep the people of that country from benefiting from their natural resources. Our interfering with other nations' affairs seems questionable enough when we are doing it to "liberate people". But to affect another nations' government to keep them from nationalizing their own oil is an attack on a country and cannot be justified in my mind. Also, the fact that we had the CIA covertly participate this operation means it was something our government wished to keep out of the public eye. Not to say that all CIA operations are wrong by any means, but the secrecy behind this particular operation and the fact that it was kept secret for so long seems to serve as almost an admission of guilt, ethically speaking, on behalf of our government.
This considered, I obviously don't think that the CIA should ever repeat what they did to Mossadegh to other countries. Given our belief in democracy it seems we should never interfere with democracy in foreign nations.
I find the story of the "countercoup", as Kermit Roosevelt put it, very interesting, and sad.
I understand very well that Iran has been hostile to the US because of this. When a foreign government stages and performs a coup against another country’s democratically elected leader, what else can be expected than hostility from the people in that country? That doesn’t mean, however, that all the actions of Iran in the past 30 years are justifiable. Their dislike of the US is justifiable, but violent actions, such as taking US embassy employees hostage, are not. Anyway, I think that the US should be less arrogant in their relations with other countries, and hopefully the Obama administration goes in that direction.
I do not think the US was justified in taking Mossadegh out. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that a country (and especially a country that boasts of being a haven for liberty, justice and democracy) forcibly removes a democratically elected head of government, and installs a person more of their liking. It gets even worse when looking at the reasons for the coup. As we learned, Operation Ajax was not done to help the Iranian people at all, but purely for US economic and political interests. The US support of the Shah’s authoritarian regime also shows that economic interests are often more important for the US than protecting principles of freedom and democracy, although US leaders tend to like to give another impression.
I think that some Iranians share the blame for what happened to Mossadegh. Certainly, the Shah and his supporters do have a responsibility for what happened. And others probably do too. However, it is difficult, maybe impossible, for us to understand how the situation for the people was in 1953. How democratic was Mossadegh’s transition to power and his government? Who had really the right to be in power? And how were these questions perceived by the people at the time? It is important to remember that information was much less available then than now. Therefore, no matter on which side we stand, it is difficult to determine what was the “right” or “just” thing for the people to do – support Mossadegh, or the Shah.
My answer to the last question is a clear “no”. I don’t think that the US, or any other country, has any right at all to perform similar actions against foreign governments. In my opinion, it is not only unethical and illegal, but can also lead to more violence and oppression.
Blame is a unspecific and diffused thing to assign to "Iranians", and most nations when those that presumably are supposed to be accountable are members of the group but not of the actually accountable. So to begin with this is a false dichotomy that either gives or does not give blame to "Iranians".
Let us for the sake of arguement take it as a given that someone is to blame for what happened to Mossadegh, by this I mean that a wrong was actually done to him. Does the peasant in the country side share blame for not rushing to the city and supporting Mossadegh, are there circles of increasing blame for citizens of Iran the closer they lived to Tehran? The more powerful they were at the time of the coup?
Some individuals are personally to blame (the shah, military officers, members of the CIA perhaps) but to look to assign blame to those that were not clearly and visibly involved is already ten times more difficult than for those for whom we have evidence of their involvement.
At any rate Mossadegh despite his fame and charisma is a peon compared to the zietgiest of confusion that moves out of the control of people in every nation, including Iran, however deliberate its citizens or politicians try to be. The fact that things like coups, other injusticies, murders, etc. create a sense that there is someone to blame, and rarely lead to a FULL accounting and administration of justice only serve to make me and maybe all of us more pessimistic about our ability to create positive change outside of our own lives. Then again when hasn't this always been the case?
From what I took away from the lecture on Mossadegh, I feel that he was the type of leader that was well-liked by his constituency and that he acutally cared about Iran as a whole. I think that had he stayed in power, Iran would be a very different place today becuase the oppression of the Shah and the Revolution would have never occurred. Personally, I liked him.
I do not think that the US was warranted in taking Mossadegh out becuase their only motivation was oil. Which seems to be the only motivation the US ever has when they do anything around the world. The United States had no right to take out a democratically elected prime minister out of power. And his election was not won through corruption and scare tactics. The Iranians really wanted him to be the leader.
So far, it seems like the majority agrees that it was wrong to overthrow Mossadegh and someone has yet to post a view from the other side of this argument,whether it is what they believe or not.
Through out history countries have undergone revolutions and restructurings of their governments. Iran is no different from the rest in this broad and general way. When the US decided to revolt against Great Britain, Great Britain fought back because the new world was a much needed economic source, much like Iran's oil is, and was, important to our economy. Some would counter argue that Britain was only reacting to an "attack" by the present day US, however, they are forgetting that the US was left well alone to establish traditions and social policies without interference of the British government for many years before British government imposed taxes were put into effect in the new world to bring it back under British control and save the British government. From this standpoint, it is easy to understand why the US became involved in the coup. This example also suggests that the US had a right to do what it did because it is historically how countries react to governmental threats.
I will also admit that there are many more arguments against US involvement in the coup and remind you that this is simply a short attempt to argue the other side.
The only state that I can imagine allowing its territory to be taken without making an attempt at regaining it is the one that soon will not exist. Taking this defensive act a step further and invading the attacking country falls on more shaky ground. Would Iraq have asked for a truce had Iran not invaded in turn? Iran got more than they could have expected when they dug into Iraqi territory, they should have taken the truce and war reparations that Saudi Arabia had offered them this would have been considered a victory for Iran—but instead they waddled in the blood bath that lost them one million of their citizens.
To my mind there is nothing controversial about using child soldiers or human mine detectors, the issue is simple, those responsible for organizing this should be executed or put be hind bars, it is obscene and unjustifiable. If someone wants to live in a country where children are sent to be butchered on a war front, and afterwards continue to live under the men that ordered their murder then be my guest, I will not justify it. As for the men that fought unarmed, its their choice, from what I know of the world, I understand that soldiers defending their families cannot always be as well armed as they would like to be. Saddam was a thug with a nation’s wealth in his own personal holding, but senile Mullah does not appeal to me much either. It was a terrible war.
After reading the various articles on Operation Ajax, I feel that the Iranians are very justified in their frustration and anger with the United States. Although I did not see the video, I feel after reading the material one could make the conclusion that the Iranian people would be quite upset.
Upon looking at the way the operation went down, I would argue that what the U.S. and U.K. did was very sneaky and selfish, and both countries obviously did not care about the vast repercussions this operation would create. For countries who support freedom and liberal values, it is interesting to see them undertake actions that prevent citizens of other countries those opportunities. Mossadegh was very respected and sounded like he had good interests at heart for the Iranian people, so to undercut that from Iran seems opposite of what the U.S. desires for Iran, like a democratic nation with freedoms. By taking out the prime minister, progression was set back.
After actually placing myself back in this time, I'm not so sure I would think the U.S. was not justified. During this "red scare" period, where threat of nuclear attacks, McCarthyism, and containment were all hot issues, an American living back then might not be so opposed to invading Iran. Strategically it made sense; the U.S. and U.K. were taking actions for their own security as well as other democratic nations. They needed resources to maintain control during a time of extreme hype and panic towards hostile nations. Yes, it was very shady, but back in that time, maybe it wasn't.
I do believe it was wrong, and I do believe that sometimes the U.S. should worry more about itself rather than other countries. Meddling in other affairs always has some sort of consequence.
As for today, I don't think the CIA should repeat something like Operation Ajax, especially if they did not have strong evidence like they did with Mossadegh. But since the U.S. is leading the crusade against anti-democratic regimes, I can't be so sure to say that it won't happen again, in some way or another.
The involvement of the US in the coup to overthrow Mossadegh really makes it clear as to why Iran became so hostile toward the government. I now understand the extent of oppression that Iran went through with its oil production overseen and completely dominated by the British. The Iranian people were not even allowed to learn how to work their own machinery, simply to avoid nationalization of their own resources. I feel that it was very reasonable for Mossadegh to Nationalize Iran's oil in order to bolster the economy. The US appeared quite asinine and paranoid by asserting that the predominant reason for the coup was a fear of communist takeover. Though Mossadegh was supported by the Tudeh (Iranian Communist) Party. He did not sympathize with its views. Had the US officials taken some time to realize that, they would have realized that they had no solid basis for orchestrating that farce. The only reason to proceed was that US government wanted the Shah who was much more advantageous for them to be in a position of power. It was unfair and the Shah's reign definitely backfired and sparked many anti-Shah/US regimes, and ultimately led to the revolution which caused Iran to diverge completely from any American ties.
In looking at the consequences following the coup, the ulterior motives of the United States become inherintly clear. Their initial involvement being with Britain whose motives were in oil, suddenly disappeared when the US became involved. All of a sudden there became this unsupported evidence of Soviet threat. I truly feel that these motives become clear when we learn that Roosevelt took the 40% of oil that once belonged to Britain. All of a sudden the initial involvement magically appears. I find it ironic that the Shah, who was paid 400 million dollars a year by a "democratic" nation...us could fail to establish democratic institutions. I also hold the US responsible for Iran's record of highest torture rate of civilians since it was the CIA who created SAVAK. I do not think Mossadegh should have been thrown out.
I think this episode demonstrates how crazy the cold war was, and how much the US' professed values change. Mossadegh was a democrat, an anti-imperialist, and had stood up to Britain: rather than seeing commonalities in its own history the US was threatened enough to topple him and crush any chance Iran had at genuine self-determination outside a colonial/imperial framework. So basically I can understand why Iran was pissed. It seems that while Mossadegh and Khomeini came from very different ideologies, the desire to be free of western power is a common thread. Interestingly it seems that Mossadegh has kind of been ignored by contemporary Iranian society- one article I read said that schools do not talk about him except tangentially. His liberalism obviously does not fit with contemporary Iran, but his anti-imperialism perhaps has been adopted. I don't think Iranians really share the blame, except probably for not resisting the coup. Kermit Roosevelt had quite the swag of cash and was simply able to rent people out. And that ain't right.
I guess the interesting thing is what happens now. It's clear that Iran is pissed off and has good reason to be: but how flexible is this position? What if Ahmedinejad wins- will the stuff ups of history keep poisoning the US-Iran relationship?
Obviously, there is more to the United States than just coups. One must have to be careful with selective history. If we label the United States as corrupt by selecting only the mistakes (historical black-eyes), then we are just as guilty as Fox News. Because, this is the same rhetoric that Fox News uses, only spun in a different direction.
Remember, Iran is more than its current government it comprises of people and geography that has been in the region for thousands of years. With that said, the United States is more than just the Federal Government.
Overall, the class appears balanced in discussing issues by applying critical analysis.
Post a Comment